A Montana case is the next battle in the fight to keep elections from being for sale to the highest bidder by keeping campaign finance limits in place.

Now, a group of leading national legal non-profit advocacy groups including Free Speech for People, former Montana Supreme Court Justice James Nelson, the American Independent Business Alliance, the American Sustainable Business Council, the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Justice at Stake and the League of Women Voters are joining Montanans in the fight to keep Montana’s campaign finance limits in place.

The groups joined the defense of Montana’s campaign finance limits with an amicus brief and and amici brief in Lair v. Motl. They are urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a District Court ruling that struck down Montana’s political campaign contribution limits. Earlier, a District Court disregarded both Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent to overturn Montana’s limits on contributions to state candidates, including judges, from individuals and political parties.

In Lair v. Motl, American Traditions Partnership board member Doug Lair wants campaign finance limits abolished. Several prominent Republican office holders and candidates in Montana caught up in the infamous Meth House Scandal, in which documents belonging to the infamous American Tradition Partnership (ATP), were found in a Colorado meth house. The documents incriminated TEA Party Senate leader Art Wittich, Mike Miller, Derek Skees, Pat Wagman, Jerry O’Neil, Bob Wagner, Dan Kennedy, Scott Mendenhall, Wendy Warburton, Ed Butcher, and Tom Burnett to name a few. Wager, Burnett, Miller, O’Neil and Wittich are currently running for office.

Here’s how Ron Fein, Legal Director of Free Speech For People, explains it: “Campaign contribution limits are justified by an interest in ensuring political equality for all, regardless of access to wealth. When political equality is jeopardized, democracy itself is at risk.”

Justice James Nelson, a former Justice of the Montana Supreme Court, and on of the court’s most respected justices, said, “Candidates for political office and elections should not be for sale to the biggest spenders. The Supreme Court has decreed that money equals speech; and contribution limits help to level a playing field tipped in favor of the big spenders by Citizens United.” I could not agree more.

The District Court overturned the Montana’s candidate contribution limits applicable to individuals and PACs, even though the limits have already been upheld by the Ninth Circuit.

In addition to the limits on candidate contributions from individuals and PACs, the lower court struck down Montana’s limits as they apply to contributions from political party committees. Montana does not limit the amount that any individual or PAC may give to political parties, but instead restricts the “aggregate” amount a candidate can receive from his or her political party.

Surprisingly, the issue hasn’t been covered by Montana news outlets, even though its the next step in a nationwide battle to protect America’s and Montana’s elections from corruption.

After all, this case comes on the heels of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, which struck down longstanding limits on the total amount of money wealthy individuals could contribute to federal candidates in an election cycle. As with the Citizens United ruling which now allows unlimited corporate dollars into our elections, the high court’s McCutcheon decision is unleashing further money into the political process from wealthy interests.

7 Commentson "Montana is at the Forefront of National Fight Against Election Corruption"

OT. Well, it appears that John Walsh plagiarized his master’s thesis. It was bad enough that he was dull and stiff. But to be exposed as a run-of-the-mill cheater is fatal. He needs to drop out of the race and quietly slink away.

Meanwhile, we need to organize immediately a write-in campaign for Denise Juneau. She’s our only hope to beat that Christofascist teabagger Daines.

Consider the context of the lack of attribution. Not a public speach, let alone testimony, but to what have become low standards throughout military diploma mills. Thats the context.
Thats the context some military people get.

Insiders and outsiders of the military will also get that Walsh bucked the system and worked to advance respect for women.
Voters will once again compare checkered backgrounds of both candidates.
Voters will once again consider “whose supports my interests?”
And a third of Montana will favor candidates relatively independent of and from, the two party system.
But once again Montana may move toward the Texas model,
Where mega wealth and global corporations favor candidates
Who support wealth and corpocracy and their main stream media,
They all supported aplenty by unregulatble cenral bank central planning!

That ‘s the context behind the Senate campaigns.

Just one more example of how more people, and more Independent Independents would vote
If there was instant runoff.
Many thousands would vote for Denise AS INSTANT RUNOFF CANDIDATE

This just a pitch for diminishing duocracy support of new world order facism.